It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ultimate Democrat Reversal ...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Now it is Democrat Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) who is adding his voice to the list of Democrats who are saying that the surge is helping. This after the rabid anti-war democrat's infamous "the war is lost" speech earlier this year.

From the Drudge Report front page:


REID NOW SAYS IRAQ SURGE HAS HELPED

'...the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that' --- Sen. Harry Reid, 12/21/07

'...this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything' -- Sen. Harry Reid, 4/19/07


Here are the links from the above headlines:

News Hour link


SEN. HARRY REID: Ray, you can't have it both ways. The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that.



NY Times link


“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq,” Mr. Reid said.


As I said in another recent tread, the democrats are now dropping the iraq war as a campaign issue like it was the proverbial "hot potato".

But in Senator Reid's case, I think we should also be saying "Deny Hypocrisy!".




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I don't see it has a bad thing that the minds of people are changing. When Senator Reid made his first comments it might have been a bit too soon. There were a lot of people saying that the surge was not working back then.

The fact of the matter is that things have changed since then. At that time all of the surge units were not even in Iraq yet. The surge was just starting to get into gear and people were already stating that it was a failure. That was certainly not the case.

I view this as a positive sign though. The less you see Iraq in the news the better things are going for the troops overseas. We all know the saying, no news is good news.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


Yes, it's a good thing that people can change their minds - especially when they've been confronted with the truth. In the case of democrats like Reid, Biden, Murtha, Clinton and Kennedy, however, the problem is that they don't care that they hurt our own soldiers with their "the war is lost" propaganda just as long as it helps further the "ends justify the means" manifesto of the democrat party.



[edit on 12/23/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The surge is only working because the population in Baghdad is basically set along ethnic lines anyway, which is what the Militant Sunnis y Shiites were looking for.

Both sides are well aware the surge is a short lived affair. Imagine the stocks of weapons they are storing in preparation for a prolonged conflict once the Americans cut down troops. A genocide in the making, on the scale of Rwanda....

Democrats are the same as Republicans.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
hmm... since they say the surge is working you call them out on reversing, but if they had said that it wasn't working, you'd call them liars.

damned if you do, damned if you don't...

though... i'm still unsure about certain aspects of the surge, especially since the administration is redefining how it has been gathering statistics. they aren't talking about lack of electricity anymore, lack of water etc etc in the same way they had reported in previous months and years.

i do see some progress with the surge, i'm just a bit skeptical until i get more independent figures.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The downturn in violence in Iraq is tempoary, repeat temporay. Too much has happened for the people on the many sides of the civil war to forgive and forget. Once the surge is over violence will rise to levels higher than in 2006.

It's hardly a reversal by the democrats. They promised to get troops out of Iraq if they got elected to congress. They didn't. That's the real reversal.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
i must add something, there has yet to be any evidence that shows the surge and the improvements in iraq have a causal link instead of it being pure correlation.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Harry Reid was an ass for saying that, especially at a time when the surge had hardly begun let alone reached it's final numbers. But that's what politicians do, make asses out of themselves because they're a bunch of self serving prigs.


I'm not so sure the troop surge is solely responsible for the drop in violence though. The Mahdi Army started a voluntary cease-fire early this year - March I think - and there's some reports that they were responsible for up to 60% of the violence. There's also the drop in violence in Basra since the UK troops started withdrawing and giving control to the Iraqis.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Lotsa crickets in this thread Centurion.

I'm not surprised by the lack of posts. It is not within human nature to admit a wrong. Yet when one admits to it, there is usually quick forgiveness from others.

The Dems really should learn from this development. They are truly the party of complaints without solutions. Kind of like sports fans. They jeer from the sidelines and expect the team or player to listen. Offer a viable alternative and your credibility increases.

Becker



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Becker44
 


yes, hooray for ignoring everything anyone else has said...

it's not clear that the surge itself is responsible, only that there has been a change in the same time period...

and, as probe brought up directly above you, there have been drops in violence in areas where troops were withdrawn, directly contradicting the "logic" of the surge...

so continue to sling dirt at the democrats instead of taking part in a discussion



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
No one made note of what Peruvian Monk had to say. By the time the surge ws even implemented the insurgents had successfully ethnically divided the population. Which was their intent.

And before any computer whacker starts accusing anyone of undermining the troops let's make absolutely sure we know what the troops position is. If you think they are gung-ho, let's get the job done you're deluded. Just consider that Ron Paul, the only 'get them out immediately' candidate, has gotten more donations from active military than any other candidate. That has got to tell you something.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I think that it is important to note, regardless of Reid's flip-flop, the bigger issues at hand.

-There would have been no need for a 'surge to work' if the President had not lied to the American People about Iraqi WMDs, we would not have been in Iraq bogged down to begin with.

-That the 'surge' that has been mentioned, still only brings the number of American Troops in Iraq to less than half of the troops used to repel the Iraqis from Kuwait. That the current mess in Iraq is largely due to the poor pre attack planning, and the lack of resources provided. I do think that things could have been considerably worse, considering that a majority of the troops over in Iraq have been Reservists on tours much longer than expected.

-The underlying coincidence that a President and Vice President intimately connected to the oil industry, started a war that has super-inflated the profit margins for the Oil Industry, and that they have made a killing, literally, doing it. That in order for public opinion to allow them to make such bold moves, the 'perfect' attack occurred at just the right time, figuratively and esoterically, allowing them to play on the inherent bigotry that comes from identifying one's enemies.

All in All, there are too many other things to worry about than Harry Reid changing his stance. The title of this thread implies that some major reversal of Democratic Party Policy was changing. All that is changing here is one politician's stance. Maybe he holds more sway over his peers than I realize, but hardly see this as "The Ultimate Democrat Reversal". A less sensational, more fitting title, would be "Harry Reid Changes Stance After The Fact In Regard to The Surge"

Too bad we are spending all our children's future fighting over in Iraq. Too bad that we can't afford to properly educate those children, because we gambled that money on Iraq.

I am sick of the Old Men trying to milk a few more million dollars on the backs of the young fighting their battles for them. Maybe when we are Old, we can change this policy...
DocMoreau



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
It's hardly a reversal by the democrats. They promised to get troops out of Iraq if they got elected to congress. They didn't. That's the real reversal.


Agreed.

A temporary (so far) downturn in violence to mere Beirut 1983 levels is hardly something to write home about, after the chaos of the last couple years.

"Look the domestic Iraqi terror levels are now sub-genocidal!!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!"

Yeah, right


Now we're supposed to think that this demented war was a good idea after all, because we only find 10 bodies a day with holes drilled into their skulls every morning instead of 50? Because there's only two or three carbombings a day instead of 10?

Uh-huh...



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
food for thought

hmm... it doesn't seem like an increase in troop levels is the only thing that's helping, but, as the article says:


Golly, that surge has been soooo successful – and things are going just swell. In fact, US soldiers have even been told to treat approaching Iraqi civilians as … civilians!


and the article goes on to describe that this scenario is not as peachy as everyone would like to have you believe.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I think ultimatly there is going have to be a withdrawl of not just American troops, but also American companies and other multinationals. There is a clear link between hundreds of thousands of people losing their job, (including 400,000 soldiers who took their weapons home with them) and the insurgency and civil war.

Granted their will be a conflict on a larger scale when the Americans leave, but they are going to have to leave at some point as it seems that Iraq was actually a country before the Americans invaded! And don't appreciate being imposed upon.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
So what?

Reid says the "Surge" has helped?

Congratulations!

How about Bush and the idiots in his administration ignored Iraq and pursued a losing strategy for three years and only "changed course" when it was painfully clear that his arrogant obstinacy was causing US and Iraqi deaths? and only RIGHT AFTER the Democrats took control of the Congress?

Reid is an idiot as opposed to whom? the people who created the insurgency in the first place? (the Bush admin's viceroy Paul Bremer and the inept US military leadership he failed to change?)



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Styki
I don't see it has a bad thing that the minds of people are changing. When Senator Reid made his first comments it might have been a bit too soon. There were a lot of people saying that the surge was not working back then.

The fact of the matter is that things have changed since then. At that time all of the surge units were not even in Iraq yet. The surge was just starting to get into gear and people were already stating that it was a failure. That was certainly not the case.

I view this as a positive sign though. The less you see Iraq in the news the better things are going for the troops overseas. We all know the saying, no news is good news.


I think people are missing the fundamental point of what the "Surge" actually is. It is far from only entailing the addition of 30,000 additional US troops. If that were the case, then one should ask why they weren't there to begin with?

What the Surge entails is a complete counterinsurgency strategy which effectively had "bought off" former Sunni insurgents and brought them over to our side to kill the "al Qaeda in Iraq" factions, which means that a lot of our new allies have American and coalition blood on their hands...

Happy Christmas...


[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]

[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Styki
 


Yes, it's a good thing that people can change their minds - especially when they've been confronted with the truth. In the case of democrats like Reid, Biden, Murtha, Clinton and Kennedy, however, the problem is that they don't care that they hurt our own soldiers with their "the war is lost" propaganda just as long as it helps further the "ends justify the means" manifesto of the democrat party.



[edit on 12/23/2007 by centurion1211]


The people who hurt our soldiers are the ones who sent them to Iraq with no clear postwar occupation strategy nor an exit plan...

God forbid anyone question the competence of Donald Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and a cavalcade of fools...



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Harry Reid was an ass for saying that, especially at a time when the surge had hardly begun let alone reached it's final numbers. But that's what politicians do, make asses out of themselves because they're a bunch of self serving prigs.


I'm not so sure the troop surge is solely responsible for the drop in violence though. The Mahdi Army started a voluntary cease-fire early this year - March I think - and there's some reports that they were responsible for up to 60% of the violence. There's also the drop in violence in Basra since the UK troops started withdrawing and giving control to the Iraqis.


There are also those that think that part of the drop in ethnic violence between Shiites and Sunnis is because the "ethnic cleansing" is largely over. That is, we have already witnessed a huge demographic change, the terrorized Sunnis have fled their homes in what were ethically mixed areas and vice versa.

Whether the Iraqis continue the civil war is up to them. But the flag waving Bush-sycophants that define victory as "less violence" are way way off the mark. Victory in Gen. Petraeus' "hearts and minds" strategy is the culmination of the war with a power sharing, national reconciliation agreement. Only the Iraqis can win their civil war, by ending it...

[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Um, WTF is going on with this thread?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join